Ex Parte Kapur

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2014

11626903 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHYAM KAPUR
____________

Appeal 2012-004716
Application 11/626,903
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding Veteska (US 2005/0283469 A1; published Dec. 22, 2005) teaches
“additional advertising content available from the advertiser of the one or
Appeal 2012-004716
Application 11/626,903

2
more advertisements for a limited time period,” as recited in independent
claim 1 (emphasis added).1 The Examiner cites Veteska’s paragraphs 35–40
for teaching the disputed claim limitation, and maps “the local time
contained in the request packet” (emphasis added) to the recited claim
element “for a limited time period.” See Ans. 24; Veteska ¶¶ 35–38 (“a
request packet includes . . . the local time”). Appellant argues—and we
agree—“the local time that the request was generated in no way implies a
time period that limits the availability of the request.” App. Br. 9. We agree
with Appellant that Veteska’s local time merely indicates a time associated
with the request packet, but does not teach “additional advertising content
available from the advertiser of the one or more advertisements for a limited
time period,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Reply Br. 5–6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims.
Independent claim 14 recites “additional advertising content available
from the advertiser of the one or more advertisements for a limited time
period.” Therefore, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 14 and corresponding dependent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–24 is reversed.

REVERSED
msc

1 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.